WICKLIFFE, Ky. — After less than two hours of deliberation Wednesday, a jury of eight women and four men convicted Edward Ream, 64, on one count of attempted animal torture and acquitted him of other charges.

Attempted animal torture is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days in jail and a fine of up to $250, which was what the jury recommended.Ballard Circuit Judge Tim Langford set sentencing for June 3.

Ream was originally charged with several counts of animal torture, attempted animal torture and criminal mischief after containers of meat soaking in antifreeze were seized by animal control during a search of his Atkins Road home on Feb. 6, 2015.

Officials said Ream used the antifreeze-soaked food to lure neighborhood dogs onto his property and poison them.

Following the verdict, the jurors informed the judge they had something to say to the court.

One juror said the jury as a whole could only convict Ream on one count because it was the only count where it could not find reasonable doubt. In examining the other charges, she said, reasonable doubt was apparent.

Another juror added: "We may have found reasonable doubt on the other counts, but we all felt he did the whole thing. We couldn't prove it, but we felt he had something to do with all of it."

During closing arguments, Ream's attorney Jeremy Ian Smith argued the prosecution had no direct evidence to support its claims.

"No matter what dog you want to talk about," Smith said, "there is no evidence that on any day that they say a dog was poisoned that there was antifreeze out anywhere on my client's property."

And on the day antifreeze was found on Ream's property, Smith said, there is no proof any dogs or cats ingested it.

Smith faulted animal control for failing to document its investigation, pointing out several officers were at Ream's house when the search warrant was served, but not all of them wrote reports of their findings. Smith also noted there were no pictures taken of the dogs that were allegedly tortured, no pictures of Ream's property, and no written or recorded statements from any of the dog owners or officers who investigated the case.

"There was actually no investigation into anybody other than Mr. Ream," he said. "The investigation was solely set on him. An investigation is not trying to find evidence to make your theory correct. What an investigation is, is if I'm an officer and even if I think Mr. Ream did this, I'm still ... looking into everything else so I can be sure that I've got my man. Mr. Ream was the target of this investigation and that was it."

When it was his turn, Commonwealth Attorney Mike Stacy told the jury not to fall for Smith's ruse, saying the defense attorney was trying to steer the jury's attention away from the issue at hand and shift the blame to the dogs' owners.

"(Ream's property) was a bated field for these dogs, plain and simple" he said. "It's not about the dogs wandering onto his property. He had that bucket set in the middle of his back porch ... He wanted those dogs to come up there. For whatever sick, twisted reason that he had, he wanted those dogs to come there, eat that food and die."

Stacy reviewed the evidence and witness testimony presented, saying there is only one common thread that ties it all together.

"The single thread that ties all these cases together is antifreeze poisoning, this man's property and his neighbors' dogs," he said. "This man doesn't deserve sympathy. He doesn't deserve consideration from you. What he deserves is to be found guilty."

Following the proceeding, Stacy said the jurors did their job and made a tough decision, adding he hoped the conviction would bring some closure to the dogs' owners.